Free Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - District Court of California - California


File Size: 110.6 kB
Pages: 4
Date: January 7, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: California
Category: District Court of California
Author: unknown
Word Count: 1,169 Words, 7,196 Characters
Page Size: 614 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/cand/192230/57.pdf

Download Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - District Court of California ( 110.6 kB)


Preview Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - District Court of California
- Case 3:07-cv-02400-SI Document 57 Filed O1/O4/2008 Page1 0f4
I Michael Petersen, Patent PRO SE .
next of friend of Nichael Petersen Jr. *?Yé" Y`?§J§I§W
2 end Ryan Petersen
P.O. Box 2462 ;»·-_ ` C_
3 Visalia. Ca, 93339; JAN M PA J. QQ
4 $€ICLé·i.\;r!iJ lv'. `:*r;i;KIHG
CLERK.0$,D£TRICTCOURT
ne¤vHexu:¤·x:m1 wrcnnnunuun
5 ,
6 Netiijf 3
7 ""—! 4%
8 UNTTED STATES DISTRICT COURTO;gQli”"·iMt
“·'OFT++&;mQ t lf¥f3<>P .·
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALTFORNTA V2/(MTLV .~P` ~.y
l0
ll
l2 MICHAEL PETERSEN ON BEHALF OF
HIESELF AND PARENT AND NEXT OF
13 FRIEND TO HTKE St. AND RYAN PRO SE CASE #C07~2&00SI
#CO7~006é6LJO
14
NOTICE OF MOTTONS AND
I5 V. MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT ON ThE
PLEADTNGS RE; FRC? lj (c),
I6 MOTION TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANTS
UNTIMELY 12/1a/07. 12/17/07
17 FTLTNGS RE; FRCP ll (e)(h)(B`
I CAEIFORNIA SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARING HEARING; 2/8/08
l9 OFFLCEy NCGEORGE SCHOOL OF LAN, VINCENT _ TIME; 9200em 2130 pm
PASTORTNO ET.AL., MOUNT DTABLO UNIFIED COURTROOM2 #10
20 SCHOOL DISTRICT ET. AL., MTLDRED BROWN, JUDGE: HON. Susan lllstoh
iedlvidually and in het official capacity /’
2l ee esslstgnt eupetlhtendent uf epeciel education \/y
KEN FERRO, lndivldumlly end in his eiiiciml
22 copecltj es Alternative Dispute Resolution
Admlmlottetot
23 _
24 Pleimtiff‘e bring theee motlaee pursuant to Fedetel Juditinl Rules OE
25 Civil Procedure {FJRCP} 12 (c) and FQRCP 12 {E) (A) {B). Ple1mtiif’s else
26 bzing theoe motlenu es u pre emtive defence against defendants thteet to
27 recover attorney fees. costs of suit and malicious prosecution. Pleintiff°e
28 heve won this cese as e matter of law and request judgement on the pleadings.

· Case 3:O7—cv-02400-SI Document 57 Filed O1/O4/2008 Page 2 of 4
1 As of the 11th dc] after defendants received plaintiff’s more definitive
2 statement and foiled to file e response, the pleadings were closed.
3 lln September 2007, defendants filed motions ond/or notice on joinder under
4 FJRCP l2(e), 12(b)(1). 12(b)(6). A CAND order issued on 11/6/07 granting
5 defendents FJRCP 12(e) motion for a more definitive statement.
6 The plaintiff nor the CAND filed the rule 12(e) motion, the defendants
7 filed the rule 12 (e) motion for n more definitive statement.
8 The CARD ordered pleintiff's to respond to defendants rule 12{e) motion by
9 ll/28/07 which pleintiffls timely filed. Listed on plaintiff's civil cover
I0 sheet from his 4/27/07 complaint is #440 "o;her,Clvil Rights" stamped with
ll original cose # ls 07 CV 00646 LJO DLE as listed on the civil docket sheet.
I2 Pursuant to FJRCP 12 (a)(4)(B), the defendants as o matter of law were to
13 respond to plaintiff's more definitive statement within l0 days after
14 receiving it and foiled to do so.
15 Plaintiff never filed motion with the CAND to amend his complaint and
16 never requested from·defendants permission to file s amended complaint.
17 Pursuant to ClV. Local Rule 10~1, a amended complaint must be s entirely
18 new complaint that replaces the original complaint. Nowhere on plaintiff“s
19 more definitive statement does he list a amended complaint. Even if
20 were to argue p1aintiff's 11/28/07 filing as a‘amended complaint, the FJRCP
21 15(a) requires the defendants to respond within 10 days after receiving it
22 which defendants have again failed to do. Defendants have thereby lost this
23 cose as a matter of law and can not punish pleintiffls for costs of suit
24 and malicious prosecution ss threatened. Plaintiff strongly objects to
25
defendants altering of their own rule 12(e) motion regarding plaintiff's
26
timely response thereto, attempting to create it into e illusionery first -
27
amended complaint. P1aintiff's also strongly object to defendants attempted
28

' Case 3:O7—cv-O2400—SI Document 57 Filed O1/O4/2008 Page3of4
[ tactics in altering the relation back statute or timeline of the limitations
2 periord. Plaintiff's clearly filed their original complaint on A/27/O7 along
3 with the civil cover sheet listing # AAO "other civil rights" as copied
4 by the filing clerk and forwarded to plaintiff by hand of clerk which
5 includes all acts of congress. Plaintiff's request the CAND carefully examine
6 this motion and rule in plaintiff's favor with great urgency and/or direct
7 the parties to resolve this matter. Enough is enough as there has been much
8 devestation from this case. Plaintiff believes there are many forms of
9 resolution and wants to work with defendants. This plaintiff followed all
10 his court orders, recomendations, appointments and children's therapies.
11 Plaintiff recently proposed to defendants to drop his own claims in exchange
12 for settlement for the children. Plaintiff was met with threats by the
I3 defendants relating to malicious prosecution and costs of suit. In being
14 backed into a corner, plaintiff applied the tangeble facts into the court
15 order of ll/6/O7 granting defendants motion for a more definitive statement
and timely filed his more definitive statement regardless or defendants
17 .. . _, .. . , , .., . L .
illusionary tneory of a amended complaint. Plaintiff reinterates he is not
18 ,... M , ,
in the business of suing the judiciary or schools and should not be punished
19 . ‘ J . . . . E .
for this action. ln fact, during past litigation, lather declared in court
20 . . . . . . , . .
filings his refusal to Join such suits and stated his opposition to the same.
21 , 0 W - . .
The Superior court specifically placed rather in position to make decisions
22
regarding the children and he worked in harmony with the professionals.
23 _
To the best of his abilities, father followed all court orders,
24
recommendations, appointments, follow ups, and childrens therapist sessions
25
for several years. The defendants had intimate knowledge od father's sole
26
custody status and the difficulties the children faced. It is with this 1
27
advanced knowledge that the defendants and their counsel being repeat
28
players in these matters showed no regard or respect for the state court

. ’ Case 3:O7—cv-O2400—SI Document 57 Filed O1/O4/2008 Page4of4
1 order and proceeded with their unlawful course of action. In the fall out,
2 this plaintiff had been reduced to loss of his residence and sole.
3 Plaintiff believes there are errors in district defendants contentions
4 relating to GOV. Code 699055 as related to the hearings in favor of the
5 plaintiff's. For the above stated reasons, as a matter of law, plaintiff's
6 request this court grant judgement on all_ the pleadings and submissions
7 in favor of the plaintiff's and exclude defendants untimely 12/14/07 and
8 12/17/07 filings as a matter of law.
9 Respectfully submitted,
10 _
12 Date: 1/4/08
13
14
15
16 8
17
18
19 ‘
20
21
22
23 _
24 —
25
26
27 8
28

Case 3:07-cv-02400-SI

Document 57

Filed 01/04/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 3:07-cv-02400-SI

Document 57

Filed 01/04/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 3:07-cv-02400-SI

Document 57

Filed 01/04/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 3:07-cv-02400-SI

Document 57

Filed 01/04/2008

Page 4 of 4